Legal implications to using SCOTUS announcement as distraction

[Atman]

A friend posted this on another board, and it is does raise some interesting points:

===================

I wonder how many people will realize what this actually means:

<<The strategist said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.>>

The decisions about when to name a Supreme Court Justice are being timed to protect a political advisor. A decision which will effect the nation for years to come is being used to try and protect one political aide.

And who says the Bush admin doesn't have its priorities straight.

===================

So, my question is, can it really be legal to manipulate appointments like this? I realize this kind of gamesmanship goes on all the time in DC, but isn't it generally with a wink and a nudge? To so openly admit that you are manipulating the electorate -- there has to be something illegal about that. Right?

:shrug:

[tx_dem41]

1. Not to defend the administration...

but where has this been "openly admitted" by the administration?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. So here's what happened:

KKKarl says to Little George,

"George, you gotta cool this thing off right now. Here's what what's gonna happen: We're gonna put all the names of all the lawyers and judges in the Federalist Society who haven't been convicted of any really serious felonies and we're gonna put 'em in a hat. And then you'll pick one of 'em out of the hat. And you'll announce it tonight and make a really huge deal out of it. Got that?"

"Uh, yeah, sure, Karl. Whatever. Dammit, gimme back my Game Boy!"

[dbonds]

3. Expect the most controversial.

They will want an uproar and debate. They may not expect him/her to get through, they just want the outrage.

[The White Tree]

4. I don't think it's illegal

the burden of proof is way too high, all evidence would be circumstantial. However, I would say it is absolutely highly unethical and a true President who cares about America and his own legacy would never consider doing it.

It'd be nice to have one of those someday.

[navvet]

5. Hate to say it but is politics as usual

and on several points not at all bad strategy by Bush.

A. He keeps it of the Evening News and the sure to be response by Senator Kennedy.

B. A prime time announcement will be heard/seen by more people than a mid morning/afternoon announcement would be, and that insures that he can have the initial spin go his way (or at least it gives him a better chance).

C. If he is smart (and say what you will but I don't think the Bush machine is stupid or we would not have lost) he will have quietly warned his allies and they will be prepared to blitz the cable shows (which you can bank on will only have this topic on tonight).

D. Finally it does move Rove off the center stage and front pages for the next few days and since it seems to be cooling down anyway today that is a net plus for him.

E. His choice looks like it is on the surface to be a reasonable moderate one to the center of the political spectrum. She will be hard to demonize, in addition the Freepers are going nuts about her thinking it is another stealth Souter and this will help the President. If the right is going nuts she must be a ok moderate.


May not like it, but it is smart political strategy.

Should be interesting, I know I will be watching.

:toast: :dem:

[tritsofme]

6. How would this be illegal?

Bush is the President, and he is obligated to fill court vacancies.

When has anyone in his administration said that they are moving up the announcement just to distract.

This is just speculation, and even if it wasn't, he can announce his nominee whenever he wants.

[ncteechur]

7. The Constitution doesn't speak to the number of SC justices.

Just because O'Connor retires doesn't mean the position has to be filled now or even at all. I don't know where the nine justices came from. But the Constitution doesn't mandate nine.

[Atman]

8. You're right, it wasn't anyone in the administration

who said they moved up the announcement. My bad. It was the GOP spokesmen quoted in articles I've read today. So, you're right, that doesn't hole much legal weight in terms of policy setting. Oh well.